Borrowing

The Ministers propose to take a motion to authorize additional borrowing to the House of Assembly, regardless of the British Government’s disapproval. We have looked previously at the British Government’s refusal to permit the United Front government to increase Anguilla’s borrowing in the absence of any hope or plan to repay the debt. Now, the Minister says he is going to take a proposal to the House to authorize some $40 million, whether the British government sanctions it or not.

Can he do that?

Section 55 of the Anguilla Constitution 1982 sets out the limitations to the powers of the Anguilla House of Assembly. It states that “Except on the recommendation of the Governor” the Assembly shall not proceed upon any Bill, or any motion, or any petition, which in the opinion of the person presiding makes provision for increasing any charge on the revenues or other funds of Anguilla. The person presiding is the Hon David Carty, the Speaker of the House. He has long served as chairman or other high party official of the ruling United Front and its predecessor ANA party.



Once the Governor informs the Speaker that he objects to the motion or resolution or proposal to increase Anguilla’s borrowing, it would be the constitutional duty of the Speaker to prevent the government ministers from debating the matter.



The first big question then, is whether the Governor will make any objection known to the Speaker in advance?

The next big question is, will the Speaker permit the Ministers to introduce such a motion in the face of its evident illegality?



In my view, any lender proceeding to advance funds to government in the face of the illegality of the borrowing will be at risk of a court ruling that the Assembly had no power to authorise the borrowing. A court would be likely to rule that the borrowing was illegal and was not an obligation binding on any future government. The lender would have to look elsewhere to recover their funds.



In the event of a law suit brought against them, the members of the House who acted illegally would be at risk of having their personal property and possessions seized in repayment of the illegal debt that they incurred.



If the Governor does not inform the Speaker that he has any objection then, in my view, the Speaker will be entitled to assume that the Ministers would not be bringing the motion unless they had the Governor’s permission, as required by section 55.